Nila Spaces Ltd Forensic Report - SOIC x StockScans Report

as of Sep 2026

Nila Spaces' record shows clean audits and no regulatory penalties, but shareholder votes reveal promoter entrenchment, a "debt-free" claim that contradicts its own financials, and weak cash conversion.

Key findings

  1. Shareholder approval sought for related-party loans and transactions with Nila Urban Living Critical - The company sought approval for related-party transactions with Nila Urban Living Private Limited (NULPL), a 90% subsidiary, including a ₹500 crore loan, ₹300 crore security/guarantee, and ₹50 crore construction contracts. These amounts represented 2,242%, 1,345%, and 225% of NULPL's annual consolidated turnover, respectively. Public non-institutional shareholders voted 0.2768% against, while public institutional shareholders voted 0% against; the 46.32% against figure applies to total votes polled, not public shareholders specifically.
  2. Promoter bloc votes carry every resolution despite 46-47% public opposition Major - Promoters holding 61.90% voted 100% in favour of appointing Mr. Deep Vadodaria as Chairman, while public non-institutional shareholders opposed at 46.32%. Related-party transaction resolutions passed only after 64,204,712 promoter votes were declared invalid.
  3. "Totally debt-free" claim contradicts secured bank facilities and preference shares Major - The MD&A states the company is "totally debt-free," yet the same annual report discloses vehicle loans, a term loan secured against inventory, an overdraft against fixed deposits, and preference shares classified as financial liabilities.
  4. Operating cash flow negative in two of last three years despite profits Major - Consolidated CFO was negative ₹28.95 crore in FY2025-26 and negative ₹40.47 crore in FY2024-25, despite reported PAT of ₹28.76 crore and ₹14.67 crore. Cumulative CFO covers only 46% of EBITDA over the decade.
  5. ₹6.52 crore stamp duty claim contested with only ₹39.38 lakhs provided Major - A stamp duty assessment on the 2018 demerger has been under dispute since FY2021-22, with a writ petition pending in the Gujarat High Court. The provision covers just 6% of the claim, and the EPFO liability for periods before 1 January 2020 remains unquantified.
  6. No capital-market penalties; only an Income Tax search and an NCLT petition Minor - No strictures or penalties from SEBI or stock exchanges were reported across seven years of filings. The only actions are a 2022 Income Tax search with no communicated outcome and a September 2026 NCLT petition challenging the postal ballot process.
  7. Group structure in flux but shallow, domestic, and compliant Minor - A joint venture was wound down in FY24, and Nila Urban Living was incorporated in FY25 and became material in FY26. The structure remains compliant with layering rules under the Companies Act.
  8. Revenue recognition relies on judgment; no customer concentration, negligible impairment Minor - The auditor flagged percentage-of-completion revenue as a key audit matter due to estimation uncertainty. No customer exceeds 10% of revenue, and ECL provision on trade receivables is nil.

What to watch

Bottom line: This is a clean-audit company with no regulatory penalties, but the promoter bloc controls voting outcomes, the "debt-free" claim is contradicted by its own financials, and cash conversion is weak. Watch the NCLT petition, the ₹500 crore related-party loan drawdown, and whether operating cash flow recovers.